Matthew Hannigan wrote:
... Which I believe is one of the motivations for GPL
version3, which has something to say about this case.
GPLv3 won't change that behavior. If you don't distribute
the binary then you won't have to distribute the source
code.
So bespoke software written for a client can be GPLed,
and the binary and source provided to the client. But
the client is under no obligation to distribute the
binary or source to others.
Similarly, an alteration to GPLed software can be freely
used within a firm [1] without needing to be provided
publically.
There's some talk about forcing distribution of the source
where the binary is used to provide a web service. But
that's a different kettle of fish.
Cheers,
Glen
[1] And the "firm" is pretty wide. The entire Commonwealth
of Australia government is one entity for copyright
purposes.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
